Developing School Threat Notification Policies that Fit School & Community Needs

Craig D. AppersonOffice of Superintendent

of Public InstructionOlympia, Washington

October 2002

E-mail: capperson@ospi.wednet.edu

Washington State’s 2002 Legislative Response to School

Safety IssuesRequires model policy development for:• Senate Bill 5543--Comprehensive safe

schools planning model, incorporating prevention, intervention, crisis response, and post-crisis recovery and key safety stakeholder involvement.

• House Bill 1444—Bullying and harassment in schools.

• Senate Bill 6351—Notification of threats of harm or violence in schools.

Goal of Washington State’s School Threat Notification Law

(SSB 6351)By September 1, 2003, each school district shall adopt a policy that addresses:

“(a) Procedures for providing notice of threats of violence or harm to the student or school employee that is the subject of the threat;(b) A definition of “threats of violence or harm”; and(c) Whether or not any such threat of violence or harm made by a student may be grounds for immediate suspension or expulsion of the student.”

Washington State’s School Threat Notification Law (SSB

6351)OBJECTIVE: “The superintendent of public

instruction, in consultation with educators and representatives of law enforcement, classified staff, and organizations with expertise in violence prevention and intervention, shall adopt a model policy that includes the issues listed in subsection (1) of this section by January 1, 2003. The model policy shall be posted on the superintendent of public instruction’s website.”

Elements of Washington State’s School Threat Notification Law

1. “Procedures for providing notice of threats of

violence or harm to the student or school employee

who is the subject of the threat. The policy shall define “threats of violence

or harm”;

Elements of Washington State’s School Threat Notification Law

(Continued)2. Procedures for disclosing

information that is provided to the school administrators about a student’s conduct, including but

not limited to the student’s prior disciplinary records, official

juvenile court records, and history of violence, to classroom teachers,

school staff, and school security who, in the judgment of the

principal, should be notified; and

Elements of Washington State’s School Threat Notification Law

(Continued)

3. Procedures for determining whether or

not any threats or conduct established in the policy may be grounds for suspension or expulsion of the student.”

Reasons for Adopting School Threat Notification

Regulations & Policies

• Promotes a safe, supportive learning environment in schools.

• Addresses a growing concern for the school’s risk management issues regarding safety.

• Is consistent with existing workplace safety regulations (i.e., workplace violence prevention).

• Provides for enhanced consistency between school districts addressing similar problems.

School Violence Risk Factors from FBI Report on School

Violence

• Elements of a school environment that promote the potential for violence include:

• Lack of attachment to school• School tolerance of disrespectful misconduct• Inequitable discipline methods• Inflexible school culture, emphasizing

superiority-inferiority elements amongst students

• Code of silence reinforces lack of accountability

• Unsupervised access to computers

U. S. Secret Service Study on School Violence

The Secret Service’s study of school students who engaged in acts of severe violence involving death found that school-based incidents of targeted violence “… are rarely impulsive. The attacks are typically the end result of

an understandable and often discernable process of thinking and behavior.”  

U. S. Secret Service School Violence Perpetrator Characteristics

• Over half of the attackers formed the idea of the attack over two weeks prior to the attack.

• Over half had revenge as a primary motive.

• Over ¾ planned the attack.• Over ¾ had unresolved grievances with

school-related individuals, and most had communicated those grievances to others.

• Most perpetrators (3/4) communicated their intent to attack others prior to the incident, usually a peer or friend.

U. S. Secret Service research has revealed that planned attacks often

employ the following strategies:

• Development of the idea about attacking the target(s)

• Communication of attack-related ideas• Inappropriate interest in target(s),

weapons, violent groups, or violent acts

• Following/stalking the target(s)• Approaching target(s) with lethal

means

Threats of Violence in Schools: What Are the Risks?

The only published controlled study addressing

the connection between threats and violentbehavior in a school environment indicated:

• More than half of adolescent males threatened someone.

• The most frequent behavior associated with a threat was hitting someone after being hit.

• Males were more likely to beat someone up after a threat than were females.

Threats of Violence in Schools (Continued)

• Students who threatened were 3 to 4 times more likely than non-threateners to engage in violent behavior.

• Students who threatened others INFREQUENTLY were more likely to engage in more serious violent behavior compared with frequent threateners or non-threateners.

• Students who threatened others FREQUENTLY engaged in the widest array of violent behaviors, including hitting others, attacking others with a knife, and shooting at others.

• 32 % of male high school students indicated they beat someone up, 9 % indicated they attacked someone with a knife, and 18 % indicated they shot at someone after making a threat.

Violence Relationship Dynamics

___________________________________________________________________

How Dangerous Are Schools? School Crime Report Data CY

2000• 7-8 percent of students reported serious

threats.• 15 percent of high school students reported

being in fights.• 9 percent of students reported active

avoidance of school areas because of fear of assault.

• 33 percent of students reported someone attempted to sell them drugs on school property.

• From 1992-97, an annual average of 44 public school teachers reported being assaulted in Washington State.

Current Research on the Relationship Between Violent Deaths and Threats

From 1994-1999 (JAMA Report December 2001):• School homicides with one victim decreased.• School homicides with multiple victims

increased.• Nearly 55 % of these incidents involved a

prior note, threat, or other action indicating risk for violence.

• Summary: “Although school-associated violent deaths remain rare events, they have occurred often enough to allow for the detection of patterns and the identification of risk factors.”

Washington State’s Supportive Learning Environment

ModelA learning environment that is safe, civil,

healthy and intellectually stimulating where students are engaged in learning

and are committed to acquiring the knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviors

to succeed in the 21st century. Such an environment must be supported by weaving together the resources of

students, families, communities, and school staff.

11

School Leadership

Shapes and motivates school, family and community around a shared vision of student success

School Climate

Behaviors and attitudes of students and staff; health, safety an d civility; collegiality and collaboration; physical space

Instructional Practices

Those practices and characteristics that influence the quality of the learning environment at the classroom

level.

Engagement in Learning (Bonding)

Reflected as a commitment to learning which results from a healthy school climate

and effective instructional practices

Supportive Learning Environment Reduced barriers to

learning; family involvement in learning; community partnerships

Enabling Systems

Elements of OSPI’s Supportive Learning Environment Model

RecoveryPrevention

Intervention Response

Re-establishing“normal” functioning

Goals for School Safety Policies:CDC Guidelines to Prevent

Unintentional Injury, Violence, and Suicide in Schools

1. A social environment that promotes safety. 2. A safe physical environment. 3. Health education curricula and instruction.4. Safe physical education, sports, and

recreational activities.5. Health, counseling, psychological, and social

services for students.6. Appropriate crisis and emergency response.7. Involvement of families and communities. 8. Staff development to promote safety &

prevent unintentional injuries, violence, & suicide.

Policy Development Process

Supportive Learning Environment Model

Comprehensive Safe Schools PlanIssues Prevention Interventio

nCrisis

ResponseRecovery

Comprehen-sive Safety

Harassment

Threats of Violence

Multi-Disciplinary Safety Planning

DISTRICT-BASED PLAN

DISTRICT-BASED PLAN

BUILDING-BASED PLAN

BUILDING-BASED PLAN

•Administrators•Teachers•Classified Staff•Students•Parents•Emergency Responders•Social Service Agencies

•Administrators•Teachers•Classified Staff•Students•Parents•Emergency Responders•Social Service Agencies

Developing Guidelines for School Threat Notification

PoliciesASSUMPTIONS:• The Supportive Learning Environment

model functions as the over-arching framework within which policies are designed & implemented, providing a goal-oriented approach to policy development.

• Inter-disciplinary approaches to problem-solving and program development are essential. Partnerships must be consistent with all-hazards safety stakeholders.

Developing Guidelines for School Threat Notification Policies (Continued)

• A structured referral system facilitated by professionals with advanced training and experience should be established and maintained.

• Training programs should emphasize prevention and early intervention methods to offset the need for crisis response and post-crisis recovery.

Elements of a Workplace Violence Prevention Policy

(U.S. Office of Personnel Management)

“A workplace violence policy statement should convey that:• All employees are responsible for maintaining a safe

work environment;• The policy covers not only acts of physical violence, but

harassment, intimidation and other disruptive behavior;• The policy covers incidents involving coworkers and

incidents involving individuals from out side the agency perpetrating violence against agency employees;

• The agency will respond appropriately to all reported incidents; tha agency will act to stop inappropriate behavior; and,

• Supervisors and all of the offices involved in responding to incidents will be supported by agency management in their efforts to deal with violent and potentially violent situations.”

Preliminary Work Plan

• Review of legal limitations of notification relative to FERPA and other related laws and regulations.

• Solicit existing school threat notification policies.

• Address limitations of notification relative to Special Education.

• Solicit perspectives of stakeholders regarding preferred methods for notification.

Preliminary Work Plan (Continued)

• Distinguish requirement of disclosure of transfer student records versus continuing students.

• Assess legal limitations on the sharing of student histories of misconduct, juvenile court records, and criminal conduct.

• Establish guidelines for principal’s decision to share information.

• Determine legal and professional standards relative to the duty to warn and the duty to protect potential victims of violence.

Example of a School Threat Notification Policy Statement

Dallas, Texas Public Schools:

“All threats of violence must be reported to the principal by students and school personnel to ensure safety. All threats will be taken seriously. When a student makes a threat the school principal must determine whether it is a terroristic threat or a threat of a less serious nature.”

Example of a School Workplace Violence Prevention Policy Statement

San Diego State University:“…(A)cts and/or threats of violence against the life, health, well-being, family or property of individuals in the workplace or in connection with an employee’s conduct of…business…will not be tolerated. Any such acts or threats by employees…toward others may be grounds for immediate dismissal…whether or not the employee making the threat intended to carry it out.”“…Employees may be better prepared to avoid or prevent violence if they are able to recognize early warning signs in advance and follow appropriate response procedures.”